Annex 31

Technical Synthesis Report
Annex 31
Energy-Related Environmental
Impact of Buildings
Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems
International
Energy
Agency
Technical Synthesis Report

Annex 31
Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings
Edited by Richard Hobday
Annex 31 Technical Synthesis Report based on the final reports of the project
Contributing authors:
Sylviane Nibel, Thomas Luetzkendorf, Marjo Knapen, Chiel Boonstra and Sebastian Moffat,
with thanks also to many important contributors to the project overall
Published by FaberMaunsell Ltd on behalf of the International Energy Agency

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Programme
Copyright FaberMaunsell Ltd 2005

All property rights, including copyright, are vested in the ECBCS ExCo Support Services Unit ESSU (FaberMaunsell Ltd) on behalf of the International Energy Agency Energy Conservation in
Buildings and Community Systems Programme.
In particular, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of FaberMaunsell Ltd.
Published by FaberMaunsell Ltd, Marlborough House, Upper Marlborough Rd, St Albans, Hertfordshire, AL1 3UT, United Kingdom
Disclaimer Notice: This publication has been compiled with reasonable skill and care. However,
neither FaberMaunsell Ltd nor the ECBCS Contracting Parties (of the International Energy Agency
Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and Development on Energy Conservation in
Buildings and Community Systems) make any representation as to the adequacy or accuracy of the
information contained herein, or as to its suitability for any particular application, and accept no
responsibility or liability arising out of the use of this publication. The information contained herein
does not supersede the requirements given in any national codes, regulations or standards, and should
not be regarded as a substitute for the need to obtain specific professional advice for any particular
application.
ISBN 0-9546600-0-5
Participating countries in ECBCS:

Australia, Belgium, CEC, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:

ECBCS Bookshop
C/o FaberMaunsell Ltd
94/96 Newhall Street
Birmingham
B3 1PB
United Kingdom
Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings
Preface
International Energy Agency

The International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in 1974 within the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to implement an international energy
programme. A basic aim of the IEA is to foster co-operation among the twenty-four IEA participating
countries and to increase energy security through energy conservation, development of alternative
energy sources and energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D).
The IEA sponsors research and development in a number of areas related to energy. The mission of
one of those areas, the ECBCS - Energy Conservation for Building and Community Systems Programme, is to facilitate and accelerate the introduction of energy conservation, and environmentally
sustainable technologies into healthy buildings and community systems, through innovation and research in decision-making, building assemblies and systems, and commercialisation. The objectives
of collaborative work within the ECBCS R&D program are directly derived from the on-going energy
and environmental challenges facing IEA countries in the area of construction, energy market and
research. ECBCS addresses major challenges and takes advantage of opportunities in the following
areas:
exploitation of innovation and information technology;
impact of energy measures on indoor health and usability;
integration of building energy measures and tools to changes in lifestyles, work environment
alternatives, and business environment.
The Executive Committee
Overall control of the program is maintained by an Executive Committee, which not only monitors
existing projects but also identifies new areas where collaborative effort may be beneficial. To date
the following projects have been initiated by the executive committee on Energy Conservation in
Buildings and Community Systems (completed projects are identified by (*) ):
Annex 1:
Annex 2:
Annex 3:
Annex 4:
Annex 5:
Annex 6:
Annex 7:
Annex 8:
Annex 9:
Annex 10:
Annex 11:
Annex 12:
Annex 13:
Annex 14:
Annex 15:
Annex 16:
Annex 17:
Annex 18:
Annex 19:
Load Energy Determination of Buildings (*)

Ekistics and Advanced Community Energy Systems (*)
Energy Conservation in Residential Buildings (*)
Glasgow Commercial Building Monitoring (*)
Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre
Energy Systems and Design of Communities (*)
Local Government Energy Planning (*)
Inhabitants Behaviour with Regard to Ventilation (*)
Minimum Ventilation Rates (*)
Building HVAC System Simulation (*)
Energy Auditing (*)
Windows and Fenestration (*)
Energy Management in Hospitals (*)
Condensation and Energy (*)
Energy Efficiency in Schools (*)
BEMS 1- User Interfaces and System Integration (*)
BEMS 2- Evaluation and Emulation Techniques (*)
Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems (*)
Low Slope Roof Systems (*)

Annex 20:
Annex 21:
Annex 22:
Annex 23:
Annex 24:
Annex 25:
Annex 26:
Annex 27:
Annex 28:
Annex 29:
Annex 30:
Annex 31:
Annex 32:
Annex 33:
Annex 34:
Annex 35:
Annex 36:
Annex 37:
Annex 38:
Annex 39:
Annex 40:
Annex 41:
Annex 42:
Annex 43:
Annex 44:
Annex 45:
Annex 46:
Air Flow Patterns within Buildings (*)

Thermal Modelling (*)
Energy Efficient Communities (*)
Multi Zone Air Flow Modelling (COMIS) (*)
Heat, Air and Moisture Transfer in Envelopes (*)
Real time HEVAC Simulation (*)
Energy Efficient Ventilation of Large Enclosures (*)
Evaluation and Demonstration of Domestic Ventilation Systems (*)
Low Energy Cooling Systems (*)
Daylight in Buildings (*)
Bringing Simulation to Application (*)
Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings (*)
Integral Building Envelope Performance Assessment (*)
Advanced Local Energy Planning (*)
Computer-Aided Evaluation of HVAC System Performance (*)
Design of Energy Efficient Hybrid Ventilation (HYBVENT) (*)
Retrofitting of Educational Buildings (*)
Low Exergy Systems for Heating and Cooling of Buildings (LowEx) (*)
Solar Sustainable Housing
High Performance Insulation Systems
Building Commissioning to Improve Energy Performance
Whole Building Heat, Air and Moisture Response (MOIST-ENG)
The Simulation of Building-Integrated Fuel Cell and Other Cogeneration Systems
(FC+COGEN-SIM)
Testing and Validation of Building Energy Simulation Tools
Integrating Environmentally Responsive Elements in Buildings
Energy Efficient Electric Lighting for Buildings
Holistic Assessment Tool-kit on Energy Efficient Retrofit Measures for
Government Buildings (EnERGo)
Working Group - Energy Efficiency in Educational Buildings (*)

Working Group - Indicators of Energy Efficiency in Cold Climate Buildings (*)
Working Group - Annex 36 Extension: The Energy Concept Adviser
(*) - Completed
ii

This summary report concentrates on Annex 31: Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings
Annex 31: Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings
Annex 31 was established under the auspices of the International Energy Agencys (IEA) Agreement
on Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems. The mandate for the Annex 31 working group was to provide information on how to improve the Energy-Related Environmental Impact
of Buildings. More specifically, Annex 31 focused on how tools and assessment methods might improve the energy related impact of buildings on interior, local and global environments. The ultimate
objective was to promote energy efficiency by increasing the use of appropriate tools by practitioners.
To this end the work of the Annex was divided into two principal subtasks:
1
2
The preparation of four core reports which provide a comprehensive introduction to the
theory of tool design and application.
The preparation of seven background reports which provide experts and tool developers with
additional information on the design and use of assessment tools.
The reports include a detailed description of assessment tools, and an international directory of tools.
Additional reports including a glossary of terms, directory of tools, and links to Annex 31 participants
were prepared. All of these outputs were then organized and presented on an Annex 31 web site, with
links to other complementary web sites.
Scope
This technical synthesis report contains a summary of the work of Annex 31, the formal duration of
which was from 1996 to 1999. It is based on the principal Annex 31 project reports listed under
References.
Mission Statement
Through collaborative research and communications we will encourage development and application of appropriate tools and assessment methods for improving the energy-related environmental
impacts of buildings.
iii
iv
CONTENTS
1.
About Annex 31
2.
Life Cycle Assessment
3.
Assessment Tools
4.
Energy-Related Considerations
5.
Core Reports
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
The Environmental Framework Report

The Decision-Making Framework Report
The Types of Tools Report
LCA Methods for Buildings Report
6.
Background Reports
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
Context and Methods for Tool Designers

Comparative Applications - A Comparison of Different Tool Results
on Similar Residential and Commercial Buildings
Case Studies of How Tools Affect Decision-Making
Data Needs and Sources
Assessing Buildings for Adaptability
Sensitivity and Uncertainty
Stock Aggregation
7.
Directory of Tools
26
8.
Glossary of Terms
26
9.
Conclusions
27
10.
Acknowledgements and Key Contacts
30
11.
Links to Participants and Agencies
30
12.
References
36
19
1.
About Annex 31
As the need to address environmental concerns becomes more pressing, energy and life cycle assessment tools will become increasingly important resources. Annex 31 presents a comprehensive overview of the theory and practice of life cycle assessment tools for buildings. Fourteen countries participated in Annex 31, each supplying one or more experts to the Annex 31 meetings. They also
supported the on-going research work undertaken by these experts, and their colleagues, at their
respective national organizations and agencies. The names of all the individuals who participated in
the Annex 31 work are listed at the end of this report, together with their affiliations and addresses.
The experts who took part in Annex 31 were typically architects, engineers or scientists. All of them
brought to the work both a practical and academic understanding of buildings and environmental
issues. Many had been involved with the development of methods and tools within their organizations and countries.
Representatives from all participating countries met as a group on at least six occasions, over a period
of three years. Sub-committees undertook to research and document the emerging assessment methods and tools, both nationally and internationally. A number of original technical reports was produced on a broad scope of subjects, ranging from theory to application. These original reports were
then condensed into a series of summary reports, each with a similar style and level of detail.
Target Audience
Annex 31 was intended to be of interest to people engaged in:
assessing the environmental impact of buildings in terms of their direct and indirect energy
use
developing assessment tools
decision-making regarding buildings, including policies guidelines, practices, materials and
systems related to the complete life-cycle of buildings,
and who are likely to be in the following groups:
policy developers, regulatory groups and others who may wish to encourage or mandate the
use of tools and methods
educators and researchers
practitioners, including design professionals
assessment tool developers
The summary reports were written for an informed and technical audience familiar with the building
sector. No specialized knowledge of environmental assessment methods or tools is required by the
reader.
2.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the potential environmental loadings and
impacts of buildings. LCA can be a rigorous way to reconcile physical interactions between buildings
and other elements of the environmental framework. In LCA the flows of energy and materials are
assessed at each stage in the life cycle, and are then summed.
LCA looks at environmental aspects and potential impacts, from raw material acquisition through
production, use and disposal. LCA is not the only approach to analysing the impact of material goods
to the environment, but it is probably the most comprehensive. All LCA tools are based on computer
models and databases.
vi
1.
About Annex 31
As the need to address environmental concerns becomes more pressing, energy and life cycle assessment tools will become increasingly important resources. Annex 31 presents a comprehensive overview of the theory and practice of life cycle assessment tools for buildings. Fourteen countries participated in Annex 31, each supplying one or more experts to the Annex 31 meetings. They also
supported the on-going research work undertaken by these experts, and their colleagues, at their
respective national organizations and agencies. The names of all the individuals who participated in
the Annex 31 work are listed at the end of this report, together with their affiliations and addresses.
The experts who took part in Annex 31 were typically architects, engineers or scientists. All of them
brought to the work both a practical and academic understanding of buildings and environmental
issues. Many had been involved with the development of methods and tools within their organizations and countries.
Representatives from all participating countries met as a group on at least six occasions, over a period
of three years. Sub-committees undertook to research and document the emerging assessment methods and tools, both nationally and internationally. A number of original technical reports was produced on a broad scope of subjects, ranging from theory to application. These original reports were
then condensed into a series of summary reports, each with a similar style and level of detail.
Target Audience
Annex 31 was intended to be of interest to people engaged in:
assessing the environmental impact of buildings in terms of their direct and indirect energy
use
developing assessment tools
decision-making regarding buildings, including policies guidelines, practices, materials and
systems related to the complete life-cycle of buildings,
and who are likely to be in the following groups:
policy developers, regulatory groups and others who may wish to encourage or mandate the
use of tools and methods
educators and researchers
practitioners, including design professionals
assessment tool developers
The summary reports were written for an informed and technical audience familiar with the building
sector. No specialized knowledge of environmental assessment methods or tools is required by the
reader.
2.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the potential environmental loadings and
impacts of buildings. LCA can be a rigorous way to reconcile physical interactions between buildings
and other elements of the environmental framework. In LCA the flows of energy and materials are
assessed at each stage in the life cycle, and are then summed.
LCA looks at environmental aspects and potential impacts, from raw material acquisition through
production, use and disposal. LCA is not the only approach to analysing the impact of material goods
to the environment, but it is probably the most comprehensive. All LCA tools are based on computer
models and databases.

Depending upon the goals and objectives of the exercise, the LCA method can be customised to
include or exclude specific stages in the life cycle, or specific types of loadings and impacts. A wide
range of assessment tools can be employed to assist in calculating results at different life-cycle stages,
with differing scope and level of sophistication. Because buildings and building stocks have such
long lifetimes, they are ideally suited to the LCA method.
Figure 1: Common effects considered in LCA

Only by considering resource flows at each stage in a buildings life-cycle is it possible to obtain an
accurate perspective on the environmental impacts. Frequently the repair and running costs are the
single highest category of impacts; however the impacts associated with creating new materials and
transportation of goods can also be especially significant.
The LCA method typically employs rules for cutting off the analysis at sensible boundaries. Where
one draws these boundaries in the energy-related impact of one or several buildings was part of
Annex 31s deliberations.
3.
Assessment Tools
Improving the environmental performance of buildings and building stocks is best accomplished
using tools as decision-making aids. Such tools help to translate insights gained from scientific analysis into the decision-making process in the day-to-day course of business. Tools stimulate communication, make energy and environmental efficiency quantifiable, and ultimately make it possible to set
goals and monitor performance. Many countries now have a variety of assessment tools that have
been tailored for use by specific users and to fill particular analytical needs.
Annex 31 categorised assessment tools as follows:
Energy modeling software
Environmental LCA tools for buildings and building stocks
Environmental assessment frameworks and rating systems;
Environmental guidelines or checklists for design and management of buildings
Environmental product declarations, catalogues, reference information,
Certifications and labels
Of these, active tools permit the use of methods and models, whilst the passive tools (tools such as
instruments, resources) help summarise, present and pass on information.
4.
Extent of Energy-Related Considerations
Energy is the single most important parameter when assessing the impacts of technical systems on the
environment. Energy resources are becoming scarce as we deplete our stock of fossil fuels, biomass
and uranium. Energy related emissions are responsible for approximately 80 per cent of air emissions. They are central to the most serious global environmental impacts and hazards, including climate change, acid deposition, smog and particulates.
Figure 2: Technical Systems are contained within the environment

Energy use in buildings typically accounts for about half of all the energy consumed by developed
countries. Transport energy typically accounts for about a third of the energy of which 5 per cent
accounts for the transport of construction materials. A further 5 per cent is used to manufacture
construction materials. So, some 10 percent of the total figure is attributable to the embodied energy
of these materials.
Buildings have a significant environmental impact beyond that attributable to the energy used
in them. Their environmental impact depends on
their location and how this influences the climate,
outdoor environment, landscape, ecosystems, and
technical infrastructures. The transportation of
goods and people to and from a building is related to the energy used within it, as is the supply
of services (potable water, waste water and solid
waste disposal, communications and energy services.)
Figure 3: Links in a typical energy chain
The choice of one site over another has environmental consequences, and it is important to understand the relationship between the building,
its site and the wider environment.

The sources of the energy consumed in buildings can vary substantially in terms of their environmental impact. Renewable energy sources can have substantially lower impacts and should be much more
sustainable long-term if not indefinitely. Also, as more energy saving measures are incorporated into
buildings, and direct energy consumption falls, then life cycle environmental impacts become more
significant. Typically, reductions in operating energy occur at the expense of increased embodied
energy, embodied emissions, and life cycle material flows. Also, as operating energy becomes less
significant, the operating demand load for water and materials can assume greater importance.
The full extent of energy-related impacts becomes clearer when the life-cycle of the building process
is reviewed:
production of energy (preliminary stage)
manufacture of basic materials (preliminary stage)
erection of building, construction
operation and use
maintenance measures
repairs and renovation
modernisation or conversion
demolition or deconstruction
5. Core Reports
Annex 31 presents a comprehensive overview of the theory and practice of life cycle assessment for
buildings in four main reports: Environmental Framework; Decision-Making Framework; Types of
Tools; and LCA Methods for Buildings. The main findings and conclusions of these core reports are
summarised below.
Logos for the core reports

5.1
The Environmental Framework Report
This report provides a detailed description of the concepts and methods used to analyse the energyrelated environmental impact of buildings. An environmental framework provides the basis for a
consistent and comprehensive description of the physical interactions which arise throughout the
lifecycle of buildings. As such it is a prerequisite for the effective design and development of environmental assessment methods and tools.
Figure 4: Building Life-Cycle and Environmental Loadings and Impacts

Physical interactions between a building and its environment include the flows of energy, water,
materials and other resources, and the corresponding wastes and emissions. They also include the
effects of technical systems like buildings on land use and bio-productivity, and on human health,
comfort and worker productivity.
The Building as a Functional Unit
When construction projects undergo environmental assessments, this usually involves the building
and the plot of land upon which it is situated. The environmental impact may be assessed over a part
or all of its life-cycle (depending on the objectives of the study, which may target the renovation
phase, or the entire life-cycle). Life cycle assessments can be customised to include or exclude specific stages in the life-cycle, or specific environmental loadings and impacts.
In some cases, the assessment may cover an entire district or town, and include not only buildings but
also infrastructures. However, at present, most of the tools available are too limited to undertake work
at this level.
Building as a Product, Process and Place
The scope of analysis being undertaken determines the way in which a building is characterised, and
boundaries are established. In general, a building can be defined in one of three ways:
1
a product, or more exactly a complex assembly of products, which are manufactured, used
and disposed of. Further, during its use, the product needs to be maintained, and some parts
will need to be replaced. Tools carry out the environmental assessment of construction materials and products within this framework.
a process which through its operation during the utilisation phase is intended to provide a
number of services to users, as well as conditions appropriate for living, working, studying,
providing health-care, leisure activities, involving input and output flows to make this process function. In order to function, the building, as a process, must therefore be provided with

energy, water, and various resources. It then yields products, namely the services that it renders,
and flows: atmospheric emissions, wastewater, industrial wastes, etc. Furthermore, it is linked
to infrastructures both upstream and downstream (energy, water, transport, wastes) whose
processes also have input and output flows.
3
a place to live. In this case it is particularly important to assess the buildings impact on the
comfort and health of users. It should be added that other population groups are also concerned by the buildings life-cycle, such as site workers, maintenance staff and neighbours.
Energy analysis tools may choose to ignore specific sources of energy, and specific energy transformations within and outside the building. Such boundaries may be warranted because the quantities of
energy involved are negligible, or because of uncertainties, or because the sources are of little interest
to the target audiences.
Figure 5 illustrates how energy use breaks down for a single-family house, and emphasises the very
significant differences in relative energy use.
Figure 5: Energy use breakdown for a single-family house
In the future, buildings are likely to become a more integrated part of the energy generation system.
Solar panels, shared heat pumps, and the cascading and sharing of heat between buildings can all
contribute to a more distributed and efficient system in which buildings become an element within the
energy supply infrastructure. LCA tools will have to reflect this integration.
In order to provide software input data which characterises the composition of the building (nature
and quantity of materials), exact plans and precise, detailed descriptions are required which are consistent with any geometric data. The nature of the materials and the conversion of quantities into units
of mass must be unambiguous. This is often not the case, and a substantial amount of work may be
required to render the information useable. Another problem occurs when developers use materials in
aggregate quantities: as no link to the geometric data is available, this leads to uncertainties in calculating the energy performance of the building, and in any study of variants.
The Importance of Non-Energy-Related Impacts
As the energy performance of buildings improves, other factors contributing to a buildings life-cycle
impact become relatively more significant. Reductions in operating energy use also effect the embodied energy and material inputs of a building and can do so at the expense of occupant comfort too. The
work of Annex 31 was originally directed towards energy consumption (because energy is the key
parameter in the environmental impact of buildings) and only then addressed the effects of other
factors. However, energy efficiency measures can make conditions worse for building occupants or
others (usually when not conducted properly or when users are not well enough informed: such as

discomfort, health problems, impacts related to insufficient treatment of water or of waste, for example). Such issues explain why Annex 31 covered energy issues by taking an overall approach in the
environmental assessment of a project.
Although no general consensus exists among tool developers and modellers, most
authors agree that the impacts related to the indoor environment are particularly
important, and of increasing interest. Traditional LCA methods do not consider any impacts on the
indoor environment, since these impacts are usually considered in isolation. Consequently, most LCAoriented tools do not include indoor environment measures either, so other methods must be used for
this purpose. Yet, combining energy analysis with indoor environmental quality is especially worthwhile because of the potential trade-offs and synergies.
The life span of a building or a site is another very important parameter in an environmental profile.
Longer building lifetimes often reduce the impacts by extending the amortization period for large
resource inputs; such as concrete foundations. Longer lifetimes also emphasize the benefits of design
features which reduce operating costs. Ideally, an environmental framework would establish the scope
of any impacts that may occur over the entire lifetime, for all buildings.
Unfortunately the long lifetimes of buildings impose high levels of uncertainty on the analysis, and
can frustrate efforts to evaluate the costs and benefits of lifetime extensions. Over a period of 40 to 60
years it is likely a building will experience significant variations in regulatory and economic conditions, and in environmental constraints and opportunities. For a detailed discussion of factors affecting the choice of building lifetimes, refer to the Annex 31 background report entitled Assessing
Buildings for Adaptability.
5.2
The Decision-Making Framework Report
This report explains why the design and development of effective environmental assessment tools has
to take place within the context of a decision-making framework. It clarifies how and when specific
participants become involved in key decisions at each stage in a buildings life-cycle. The report also
defines the scope of each decision, and types of evaluation criteria and decision-support tools that
may be useful.
Decisions taken at the inception of a project often have a large, if indirect, influence on its performance over the entire life-cycle. For example, the orientation of a building can have a profound effect
on overall energy consumption.
Figure 6: Impact of time on cost and influence

Other decisions taken at the planning stage can affect maintenance requirements and demolition
costs. Simulation models and tools can be used to analyse these issues by evaluating different sce-

narios over the building or stocks lifetime. This process can be used throughout the design and the
life cycle stages for a building, as listed below:
Preliminary study (basic information, study of feasibility, determination of purpose)
Design process (development of concepts, design phase, preparation of approval)
Preparation of working documents (specifications, tenders)
Execution (organisation of construction site, construction, control/inspection, documentation)
Use (utilisation, maintenance)
Deconstruction or demolition (design of deconstruction, preparation of deconstruction,
deconstruction, disposal/recycling)
Table 1 presents a more detailed example of such a generic process.
Step
Description
Identifying the problem
- recognise the problem

- engender awareness of the problem
- analysis and description of the starting point
- analysis and description of requirements
- establish programme of requirements
- state economical, ecological boundary conditions
- evaluate guidelines possibly
- establish evaluation criteria
- establish limits and target values
- arrange solution of problem
- choose calculation methods and tools
- choose evaluation methods and tools
- evaluate information sources (databanks)
- evaluate case studies, benchmarks, precedents
- generate alternatives
- describe technical parameters
- generate balances
- use calculation methods and tools
- evaluate technical, economical and ecological performance
- use evaluation methods, indicators and tools
- establish whether solutions are legally permissible
- use (technical) limits/thresholds
- use exclusion criteria
- compare advantages of solutions
- use technical/economical/ecological target values
- use recommendation criteria
- select alternatives (to follow up)/stop (no decision**)
- use multi-criteria decision methods
- use decision-making aids
Describing the problem

Determine tasks
Establish prerequisites
Generating alternatives
Evaluating alternatives
Pre-selection stage 1
Pre-selection stage 2 (*)
Decision-making
Special cases:
Preparation of specifications
Execution
Verification
- specify important building measures

- prepare technical, legal, and organisational documents
- judge performance
- measure, monitor and compare performance relative to limits and target values
(*) The pre-selection stage 2 is intended to reduce the amount of possible solutions after the initial pre-selection. Stage 2
selects the more advantageous solutions from the technically possible and permissible solutions selected in Stage 1. The
aim is to reduce the quantity of final alternative solutions to a manageable amount.
(**) Breaking off the decision-making process due to inadequage solutions is usually accompanied by the identification of
a new problem and leads to a new decision-making cycle on the same or a higher level.
Table 1: A Description of Decision-Making and Preparatory Process

Surveys by Annex 31 researchers identified that most countries have some form of standard, or make
recommendations, for the design process for buildings. These are often created to make the costs of
the design process more transparent. For example, the standard design protocol used in Switzerland
(SIA, 1996), identifies the percentage of the total fee that can be charged at each stage of a design. A
standardised design process of this kind can be a valuable guide when preparing a decision-making
framework at a conceptual level.
Improving the Role Played by Key Personnel
A wide range of individuals are involved in building projects and they come from different disciplines. They have different concerns, choice criteria, and priorities. The term environment carries
different meanings to each of them and is often restricted to only the types of impacts historically
related to their respective disciplines. This broad variety of perspectives, and the predominance of
non-environmental criteria in decision-making, presents a major barrier to the development of green
buildings.
Nevertheless, each participant in a building design process has his or her own scope for decisionmaking, and may become involved in decisions at a number of stages in the process. Decision support
tools must reflect this complexity, and recognise that each person is unlikely to derive the same
results when using similar tools. Also, specific tools are needed to support good decision-making at
the most appropriate stage of a project. Annex 31 identified that participants involved in design need
the following:
Decision aid and assessment tools
Tools for raising awareness, and for educational purposes
Design aid tools (catalogues of solutions or of products)
Tools with which to carefully consider the environment at the local scale
Tools to aid the participants in making the right decision at the right time, but without making
the decisions for them.
Tools which speak their language, which are transparent, are easy to use and are appropriate.
They need quick, effective, affordable tools adapted to their needs and culture. These tools also must
adapt to the different levels of decisions involving tool application, including:
The person who initiates an approach to the assessment of the environmental quality of a
project (example: a local political entity),
The person who selects the most suitable tool (example: an environment consultant),
The people who provide the necessary input data (examples: the architect, the engineering
firms, the manufacturers),
The person who implements the assessment tool (example: an engineering firm),
The person who interprets the results of the assessment (example: the engineering firm with
relation to the building owner),
The person who takes the final decisions (example: the building owner or the contracting
authority).
Building owners are typically very sensitive to issues of cost, affordability, and quality of life. Environmental concerns are often treated as if they are achieved at the expense of these concerns. However, the recent emphasis on sustainable development in urban areas has repeatedly emphasized the
potential for true synergy when an integrated design process is adopted. By simultaneously addressing the three spheres of sustainability, - economy, social welfare and environment it is possible to
improve all three. While the larger issues of sustainable design were beyond the scope of Annex 31,
ultimately they are unavoidable. Only by achieving synergy across a broad range of goals is it possible to have significant success in reducing the energy-related environmental impacts of buildings.
Figure 7: The three spheres of sustainability

It is important to reposition the environmental quality of a building in a broader overall context. This
means that each technical or architectural green solution has to be systematically compared to a range
of criteria (environmental, technical, financial, social) as part of an integrated, multi-criteria approach.
Ideally the entire design team should be educated and made aware of environmental issues, the use of
assessment tools, and environmental management procedures. The design team for a building project
should include people who are knowledgeable about use of assessment tools.
The overview of the decision-making process in Annex 31 emphasized the need for purpose-built
tools that can assess solutions throughout the project life-cycle. Such tools need to be quick, effective
and low-cost, adapted to the individuals needs and culture. Each of the interested parties has special
needs that need to be addressed, as discussed below:
For owners and financial controllers, it is important to be able to translate improved performance
from green buildings into opportunities for financial incentives, increased productivity, enhanced
marketing opportunities, innovative financing schemes, improved technical guarantees, and reduced
liability and risk. Life cycle cost thinking is fundamental to such an approach. Environmental methods or tools can be used to help building owners translate general environmental goals into tangible
goals, and set priorities.
For architects, decision-support tools must be adapted to the day-to-day realities of work processes.
Tools must accommodate fast-paced, visual decisions, and allow for rapid iterations. Environmental
criteria need to become another layer of information, integrated into a multi-criteria analysis.
For engineers, access to objective and detailed information on appropriate tools is the greatest need.
Engineers also need just-in-time training, and regular feedback on actual performance of existing
green buildings.
For contractors, the major issue is managing the changes and developing new standards for specific
applications. Results from decision-support tools need to be transparent, and closely tied to information on best practices.
The best way to address the multi-disciplinary nature of the design process, and to integrate the
environmental elements with other functions, is to use an integrated design process (IDP). This involves a design team working together with a wider range of technical experts, local stakeholders and
partners than would normally be the case. It brings them together at the early stages of a project and
uses their expertise to influence fundamental design decisions. Although IDP involves more extensive decision-making at the early stage, the additional time taken is usually recovered later in the
project. In addition to improving co-ordination between disciplines, it allows for effective, controlled
input from the public and to improved designs.
In this context, the use of relevant environmental assessment tools should lead to better knowledge of
environmental impacts related to buildings, and to an improved dialogue between all parties involved
in a building project. Tools must provide precise answers to questions on the environmental impact of
buildings during their life-cycle, and satisfy the environmental objectives mentioned in the brief.
10

They should contribute to a rationale for choosing environment-friendly solutions, and emphasise the
importance of life cycle environmental impacts during the critical early design phases.
5.3
The Types of Tools Report
Tools are the interface between the environmental framework and the decision-making framework.
They inform the decision-making process by helping individuals understand consequences of different choices. In this way assessment tools ultimately serve to improve environmental performance.
Figure 8: Tools are the interface between the environment and the decision-maker
To be effective, a tool must be tailored to the planning phase, the knowledge base of the user, and the
concerns of the actors including the applicable assessment criteria and standards. Accordingly,
either a wide variety of tools are needed, or each tool must be scalable and capable of adapting to the
users needs and knowledge. This report describes the categories of tools, and their information requirements. The report also identifies key features that make tools effective.
Figure 9: An anatomy of tools in relation to the environment and the decision-making process
LCA Tools for Buildings and Building Stocks
LCA tools help to unravel the relationships between building specifications and potential environmental impacts. They explicitly address one or more stages in the life cycle. They help users collect
and analyse data on the energy and material flows. They translate design and management choices
into meaningful statements about environmental effects and impacts. Because of the complex interrelations between life cycle states, resource flows and environmental consequences, all LCA tools are
11

based on computer models and databases. Hence these tools employ interfaces that increase potential
for interaction between the user, the model and the associated databases.
Interactive software is widely available for designers who wish to optimise aspects of building performance, such as ventilation or heating. These simulation models may be educational and predictive
models, although some are also designed as decision-support for planners, engineers and designers.
They also may be required or embedded into LCA tools. Unlike LCA tools, however, they focus on
the operating phase of a building only, and the results do not explore the potential environmental
impacts at local, regional or global scale.
LCA tools specifically address one or more stages in the life-cycle of a building. As many of the most
important decisions are made during the preliminary study and design phase, it may be appropriate at
this point to use a comprehensive LCA tool (i.e. a single tool addressing all stages), or a series of LCA
tools that can be integrated for decision support purposes. LCA tools can then be applied to each stage
in the life cycle, as follows:
Embodied energy
LCA methods are especially helpful for assessing embodied energy and environmental impacts, since
the tools can conveniently analyse the extensive product assessment data generated by other sectors.
In view of the extensive data processing involved, tools are essential when assessing the energy and
mass flow involved in both the manufacture of building products and the provision of technical services like heating.
Assessing construction and erection of the building
The construction phase is often overlooked but can have a significant environmental impact. Transportation of materials and workers is also a potentially important source, as is worker health and
safety. A rigorous assessment must include a description of all building products and services employed (including supporting materials, waste and the proportional usage of temporary materials, e.g.
shuttering) as well as of the transport costs and construction processes. The accounting process is
complete when the building is approved for occupancy. As ever, analysis methods and their accuracy
depend to a large extent on the availability of accurate information about the construction process.
Assessing the occupancy phase of a building
The assessment of environmental impacts associated with the occupancy phase are based on a range
of assumptions (scenarios) and calculation methods. The process involves inventories of energy usage and/or the amount of end-energy and energy carrier necessary to run the building when in use,
including heating / cooling, water heating, lighting, ventilation, lifts and other technical services and
auxiliary energy usage.
Scenarios forecast the type and duration of usage, the user requirements and standards of thermal
comfort, location of the building, climate, and intensity of use. Such assumptions are usually calculated according to predetermined default values and calculation methods. In the interests of better
understanding and flexibility of use it is better to calculate energy usage by its function and the
manner in which it is supplied rather than to aggregate it.
Urban systems during the use-phase
Analysing the energy usage and environmental pollution created by a buildings demand on urban
systems can be an especially challenging - and yet important - function for LCA Tools. Of particular
concern is the location of large housing schemes, and their impact on the use of public and private
transport. Other issues which affect energy use in this context include: energy demand for cooking,
household appliances etc.; energy demand for technical services; water requirements and the amount
of waste water and sewage produced; the type and volume of rubbish; and the transport of goods.
Maintenance and refurbishment activity
12

Cleaning, servicing, maintenance and refurbishment work are needed to maintain the usefulness of a
building during its lifetime. The resulting energy and mass flow can be determined as part of a lifecycle analysis. The data can be significant, for example, cleaning costs can exceed energy costs in
some facilities.
Planning tools often contain detailed information concerning new and refurbished elements. These
can be linked with maintenance schedules and used as a basis for calculating the energy and mass
flow which result from the cleaning and maintenance of the building. Values are typically given both
as a total for the expected duration of the use-phase, or for each year in which cleaning or maintenance have occurred during the lifetime of the building.
Decommissioning and disposal of buildings
A significant amount of energy is used during the demolition and disposal of a building. The energy
and mass flow involved in the demolition, removal and possibly also the disposal processes should be
assessed. However, the extended life of buildings makes predictions of this kind rather imprecise and
they are approximations rather than accurate assessments the longer the lifetime of a building the
less exact the prediction.
The outputs from LCA tools can include raw and/or evaluated information regarding the energy and
mass flow involved in the demolition, decommissioning and disposal of a building. In addition, a
declaration of re-use and recycling potential is possible. An alternative definition for the end of a
particular life-cycle as opposed to the demolition of the building, could be the re-use or conversion of
the building for a new activity. The resulting energy and mass flows can then be assigned to any
subsequent life cycle, rather than the existing one.
Passive Tools
Passive tools support decisions without demanding much interaction from the user, and typically lack
the degree of customisation and computer support provided by LCA tools and simulation models.
Passive tools tend to contribute static information to a process, rather than performing calculations, or
altering designs. Depending on their type and purpose, passive tools:
aid formulation of design objectives;
convey results of predetermined assessments based on proxies or references
assist in directing the planning and decision making processes; and
provide outputs of assessment results completed by third parties.
Passive tools come in various guises: regulations and conventions; guidelines; checklists; case-studies and examples of best practice; building or energy passport documentation; product labelling and
descriptions, are just some of the examples discussed in this report. The advantages and drawbacks
are reviewed in each case.
All Tools are Not Equal
Unfortunately, the application of the various methods and tools that are available for the environmental assessment of buildings will lead to results that are often not directly comparable. Differences are
most often a result of the system boundaries what is included and excluded from the analysis
which have been established for the building, or stock, and the environment. Other common reasons
for variations in the results obtained include:
the actions of the intended user, his or her role in the decision making process, and the way in
which choices are framed
how the cause and effect chains are constructed in the model
data sources, quality and format
13

how results are aggregated and presented
Key Features of Effective Tools
Decision support tools should integrate any environmental criteria into the existing design process.
This is a challenge. Architects and others involved in the building design process must already juggle
many conflicting criteria to arrive at a satisfactory solution, be it for new buildings or for renovation.
When assessment tools are introduced, they always take up economic resources, time, knowledge,
and require access to specialised information. It is essential therefore that decision-support tools
minimise complexity and costs. In this context, tools must:
address those factors that have the most deleterious effect on the environment
be readily adaptable to specific buildings and locations
be capable of ranking results rapidly, so that trivial issues can be eliminated
be transparent in their assumptions
5.4
The LCA Methods for Buildings Report
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential
impacts throughout a products life from raw material acquisition through production, use and
disposal. The LCA method entails compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs for a clearly
defined system, and then evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs
and outputs. This report shows how to apply the basic LCA method to building products, single
buildings and groups of buildings. The report then examines typical problem areas encountered when
LCA methods are used for buildings, and recommendations are made as how best to adapt the LCA
method and overcome specific problems.
Figure 10 illustrates the flow of materials from nature, to nature, through the course of a buildings
life. The type of impacts generally considered include those on resource use, human health and on the
ecological consequences associated with the input and output flows of the analysed system.
Figure 10: Life cycle assessment for buildings

The LCA method is not the only approach to analysing the impact of material goods on their environment, but it is probably the most comprehensive.
Six LCA issues are examined in detail in this report and they are summarised below:
14

Setting Boundaries for Building Assessments
Accounting for Local Impacts
Use and Maintenance Scenarios and Assessing for Building Adaptability
The Allocation Problem
Accounting for Building-Related Transportation
Analysing Groups of Buildings (Stock Aggregation)
Setting System Boundaries
System boundaries define what is included, and excluded, as part of LCA. Boundaries can be established in all areas but, ultimately, they must relate closely to the intended use of the tool, (this is
explained in more detail within the Annex 31 report on Decision-Making Frameworks). System boundaries also need to reflect a reasonable compromise between the validity of the results and the practicability of obtaining them.
Setting system boundaries for buildings is critical to achieving valid and comparable results. A system boundary has the effect of limiting specific resource flows and emissions included in the assessment. These flows and emissions are the sources of impacts, and through cause and effect chains they
ultimately establish the LCA results. Indeed, comparative studies implementing different LCA tools,
show that most of the variations observed in the results come from differences within the limits of the
system - differences that were not always clear at the outset.
Areas which pose particular problems for the LCA analysis of buildings include: occupant behaviour
in the use phase; transportation inputs; and the processes (and related flows) linked to the building (in
particular the water supply, sewage, and solid waste processing). These issues illustrate the fact that,
when in use, a building is a kind of active process and is only one dependant element within a
broader and more complex urban system.
Accounting for Local Impacts
Buildings can be difficult subjects for LCA because many of the environmental impacts associated
with them are specific to their locality. Site-specific environmental impacts fall into four main categories:
neighbourhood impacts (e.g. micro-climate, glare, solar access, wind patterns);
indoor environment (e.g. Indoor Air Quality and Indoor Environmental Quality);
local ecology (e.g. ecologically sensitive areas, connected green spaces,); and
local infrastructure (e.g. carrying capacity of transportation system, water supply).
Traditional LCA does not address local impacts of this type. Instead, all the loadings are aggregated,
and thus impacts can only be calculated at the regional or global scale. In order to adapt LCA to
buildings, the site-specific impacts must be either excluded from the assessment (by boundary setting), or separately inventoried and classified.
Modelling of site performance is becoming much more common. However, this is usually restricted
to indoor environmental quality, and to natural ventilation and lighting potential. The interaction
between a building and the local environment, in terms of noise, glare and other factors, is much more
difficult to model and typically beyond the capacity of LCA practitioners.
As communities strive for green infrastructure and sustainable urban systems, the impact of building
design on the local environment will become more significant. Well-designed buildings can benefit
the community by contributing to the industrial ecology and by functioning as part of the neighbourhood infrastructure ( generating power, treating wastes, collecting water and so on). Understanding
such interactions is a necessary step in assessing lifecycle environmental impacts for a specific build-
15

ing design. Since models and tools are currently unable to predict most of these site-specific impacts,
LCA methods cannot adapt to meet such needs. The best alternative may be to combine LCA with
more passive and qualitative evaluation tools.
Use and Maintenance Scenarios and Assessing Building Adaptability
Unlike most other products, buildings are occupied for long periods of time and their use phase can
have a more significant impact on the environment than all other phases combined. The issue for LCA
applications is how best to characterise the use phase. Scenarios are needed to define the role of
occupant behaviour. In addition, other scenarios are needed to indicate how the building itself will be
kept in order and modified maintenance cycles, repair and replacement schedules, renovation and
refurbishment of interior spaces by occupants. Assumptions about the efficiency with which the building
will adapt to changing expectations, changing uses, and the introduction of new technologies will
have a direct bearing on the buildings performance and longevity (Many buildings are vacated or
demolished long before the end of their useful life due to a lack of adaptability.) Evaluating a range of
usage scenarios is thus critical when assessing the true long term performance of a given design or
product or system.
The Allocation Problem
The LCA method should ensure that individual products and services receive their fair share of the
overall environmental loading that is being estimated. To this end some form of allocation procedure
may be needed, and this usually occurs in one of two situations:
1
The process in question delivers more than one useful product - a so-called multi functional
process. Most processes included within typical LCA system boundaries contribute to the
production of more than one product. Under such conditions, allocation procedures are required to determine which inputs and outputs of the multi-functional system are attributable
to the one product or service under assessment. For example, information may be available
on the overall energy required in a factory producing metal products for the automobile
industry and also a particular line of metal products used in buildings.
Figure 11: Simultaneous shared process

However, there may be no records that discriminate between the amounts of energy required for the
auto products and the building products. One of the many ways to allocate the energy would be to
apportion the total energy use to each product on the basis of weight. Whatever allocation procedure
is used, the object is to ensure that products receive their fair share of the environmental interventions
originating from the shared processes.
2
16
The process in question is part of a recycling loop. In other words, the multifunction process delivers more than one useful product, succeeding each other over time. For example, the
metal produced by the metal factory may contain 50 per cent recycled scrap iron, with correspondingly fewer environmental loadings than if new iron was used. Similarly, once metal
has been used in a house, it may be destined for re-use in another building, and then returned
to the scrap iron pile for recycling into auto parts. Allocation procedures are needed to fairly

allocate the environmental loads from mining, transportation, industrial processes, and so
on, amongst these successive products.
Accounting for Building-Related Transportation
Transportation is a process that needs to be inventoried at each stage in a buildings life cycle. Typically, the loadings from transportation are calculated separately from other processes. The energy
used for all of this transportation can be very significant. Often transportation impacts are the most
variable input for a product, and serve to differentiate the higher and lower impact options. While
energy consumption in the building sector is falling, due to advances in energy efficient design and
new technologies, transport energy is predicted to rise by 4% per annum.
In the UK, as with all other developed and urbanised countries, the car is the dominant mode of
transport. Figure 12 highlights the contribution of UKs transport to global warming and shows that
road transport accounts for 80 per cent of the total carbon produced by transport. The Confederation
of British Industry (CBI) has put the cost of congestion to the British economy at approximately 15
billion (EUR 22.5 billion) every year.
Transport to and from a building can cause environmental impacts as large as those incurred operating the building itself. Hence, the transport related environmental consequences of location, and the
potential for savings, are substantial and some account must be made for them in an assessment.
Figure 12: The contribution of UKs transport to global warming
Figure 13: Energy consumption in the UK
17

However, a major difficulty with LCA for buildings is in determining how best to account for transportation during the use phase. Occupant behaviour is difficult to predict, and transportation scenarios are complex. Types and amounts of occupant transportation are dependant upon many factors
unrelated to building design or occupancy. It is also difficult to correlate design and management
decisions with quantifiable changes in the amounts of occupant transportation. Again, much depends
on the system boundaries and objective of the study if transportation is included in LCA for buildings.
Analysing Groups of Buildings (Stock Aggregation)
Stock aggregation refers to the process of evaluating the performance of a building stock using LCA
results from components of the stock. For example, total energy use by a stock of buildings can be
estimated by adding up the energy estimates for all the individual buildings within the stock. Or for
less effort, a subset of representative buildings can be analysed using LCA methods, and the results
then factored in proportion to the total number of such buildings in the stock.
As stock aggregation usually begins with the analysis of individual buildings, it is referred to as a
bottom up approach. Any performance issues that can be analysed and assessed at the bottom for
an individual building or specific technology - can then be aggregated upwards and used to evaluate
the performance of a building stock.
Stock aggregation is often the best method available for analysing stock performance for several
reasons:
1
Energy and resource flows are a function of dynamic relationships between a buildings shell,
and its equipment, systems and operations. By first using dynamic computer models at the
building or end use level, and then aggregating upwards, one can observe, analyse and resolve energy use and environmental performance with greater accuracy.
Much of the energy and environmental impact associated with buildings is related to the full
life cycle of buildings including material production and demolition. Only by aggregating
data based on LCA methods is it possible to estimate accurately the impacts of the stock.
The detailed and precise structure of a bottom-up database can help to identify any sensitive
variables that may be especially important to the overall performance of the buildings, or
stock. By changing such variables, it becomes possible to forecast the results of specific
scenarios, and to prepare substantive arguments for particular building designs and policies.
The scale of stock aggregation can vary, from a small housing stock within a single project, all the
way to aggregation of national building stocks for residential, commercial, and institutional sectors.
The base data and the results can be nested from neighbourhood, to community, to regional and
national level - while preserving the same data structure and detail. Partial stocks can be aggregated,
consisting of sets of private or publicly owned buildings.
Stock aggregation can be used to estimate performance of building stocks in the future, if assumptions are made about the growth and turnover rates within a stock, and the adoption rates for new
technologies. Forecasts for energy, water and land use, and for generation of solid and liquid wastes,
can be compared with the current and planned capacity limits for the surrounding infrastructure.
Environmental loadings originating from the stock can be compared with the capacity of the local
ecology to absorb them.
Stock aggregation methods are of particular value to energy analysts, building scientists, statisticians
and practically anyone involved with planning urban development and promoting environmentally
friendly technologies. Table 2 provides examples of user groups and typical queries suitable for stock
aggregation methods.
18
Classes of Users and Responsibilities
Example Query
Policy Analysts
- Local Agenda 21
- Regional Growth
- National
- European Union
- International Energy Agency
What kinds of building technologies are needed

in order to meet greenhouse gas emission targets?
Planners
- Site Development
- Infrastructure investment
- Technology Promotion and Development
What is the potential for a district energy

system?
Private Sector
- Large Corporation
- Specialty Businesses
What is the expected market size for window

replacements?
Utilities
- Electric/Gas
- Water/Sanitary
- Telecommunications
What is the expected peak demand for houses in

the planned neighbourhood?
Table 2: User groups and example applications
6. Background Reports
6.1
The art of tool design is evolving in concert with the sophistication of users, the availability of improved information technology and increased market demand for green buildings. This report provides an overview of the most important issues currently facing tool developers. Many of the critical
assumptions about building lifetimes, energy flows and occupant behaviour are addressed.
Figure 14: Decision-making relating the to environment and tools
19

The needs and motivations of users are analysed, and examples are given for how tool developers can
best present results.
Assessing the environmental performance of buildings involves a number of critical assumptions
concerning the anticipated life, maintenance, demolition or deconstruction phases of a building. The
nature and scope of these assumptions must be clear to the user: tool developers must justify them and
make them explicit. Also, given the sensitivity of the results to the set of assumptions used, some form
of sensitivity analysis should be undertaken. Environmental tools must inform the user of any uncertainties and assumptions that have been made, in order to be able to interpret accurately the assessment results.
Developers of methods and tools should concentrate on the information requirements of their target
audience. The developer should analyse the working methods and decision-making processes of the
intended users. Tools must be designed to be easily understood by users and decision-makers. They
must provide meaningful results that reveal causal relationships between sources and impacts. Key
decision-makers and other non-technical audiences are likely to want concise information presented
in plain language. Others, who may be more accustomed to using assessment tools, will be able to
deal with more detailed and technical information.
This study has also identified a number of other areas where there is a need for progress in tool
development. In particular, setting system boundaries is more difficult and critical than it appears at
first sight, and tool designers must be more explicit when they describe boundaries they have set, and
must justify their choices. Tool developers should inform users about the validation procedures and
results. They should also:
try to avoid redundancy,
maximise the objectivity of outputs,
include the most significant environmental impacts attributed to the building sector,
focus on those outputs which are amenable to improvement by the user (generally the building designer).
The decision-maker should be able to identify the sources responsible for the environmental effects.
The decision-maker should also be aware of any uncertainties, and the tool developers should find
adequate means to present them. In general, current tools do not present uncertainties well.
Assessment methods are particularly valuable at the inception of a building project, when information is scarce, or can be very imprecise. Ideally, an assessment tool should be able to accommodate
increasingly detailed levels of data which become available as the project progresses. To this end, it
may be advantageous for tool designers to establish new simplified models from current detailed
models. These could then be used by decision-makers at the outset of a project. More importantly,
assessment tools should provide some form of cost analysis in addition to the environmental results,
as cost is a key factor in decision-making.
All of the assessment tools currently available require a competent person to interpret the results they
produce. Simply presenting this information to the target audience without some form of dialogue or
discussion is of little value. It will leave them with little understanding of the results, their implications, and of any decisions that have been made.
6.2
Comparative Applications - A Comparison of Different Tool Results on Similar
Residential and Commercial Buildings

This report describes the results of an Annex 31 research project in which the environmental impact
of both a single dwelling and an office building was assessed with tools from participating countries.
The tools used in the IEA ECBCS Annex 31 study are described in Table 3. All of these tools are
20

intended to assist in quantifying or qualifying the environmental profile of a building, or to assist
decision-makers in improving the environmental performance of a building design.
Country*
Australia
Canada
Denmark
Germany
England
Finland
France
Japan
Netherlands
Norway
USA
Sweden
Switzerland
r
r
r
o
o
o
r
r
r,o
r
r
r
r
r
Tool
Energy Calculation
LCA-based tool
Optimize
SBI tool
Ecopro
BREEAM98 for offices
BEE 1.0
EQUER
TEAM for buildings
BRI-LCA
Eco-Quantum
LCA-based tool
BEES 1.0
EcoEffect
E2000 Oeko bau Standard
HOT 2000
BV95
Esicheck
COMFIE
Th-C and DEL2 methods
Energy Performance Calculation
Energy 10
-
Table 3: Tools in application in Annex 31. The energy calculation programme is mentioned if applied.
*r - signifies a residential building: o signifies an office building)
This research identifies similarities and differences between tools and gives an evaluation of their
performance. It shows how tools work, and how they lead designers, consultants and researchers to
produce more environmentally conscious buildings.
Each tool was use to calculate the environmental impact of the reference buildings. This was carried
out in three stages, using common input data:
1
2
3
Excluding the energy-in-use phase for the buildings

Including energy-in-use and adapting the buildings to the local climate
Including energy-in-use and improving the environmental performance of the buildings
Differences in outputs occurred between the tools used. The source and quality of data, system boundaries, data allocation and weighting factors and environmental profiles had a significant impact on the
results and the scope for comparing the quality of the tools. Unfortunately the accuracy, or the validity, of the results could not be fully verified because there was no datum against which to compare
them. Nevertheless, all of the tools produced similar results: they showed that energy consumption
during the use phase was responsible for 75-95 per cent of the environmental impact of buildings
during their life-cycle.
Reducing energy use produces the greatest environmental benefits; but for highly energy-efficient
buildings, reducing the environmental impact of building materials assumes greater importance. Another important conclusion from this study is that it is possible to improve the energy consumption of
a building without increasing its embodied energy. A further finding is that the life-cycle embodied
energy of a building is likely to be of greater significance than the initial embodied energy.
21
Figure 15: Plan of action for the comparative assessment

The results also support the view that the transparency of an assessment tool is one of its most important characteristics. The people who use them need to be able understand the background details of
tools before they can draw appropriate conclusions from the results they produce. Uncertainty analysis and variability analysis are also very important for the interpretation of the performance of the
tools. However, they rarely feature in the current generation of tools, or are not apparent to the user
when they do.
This study demonstrates that current thinking about environmental assessment is converging towards
LCA methods, and that these can be used for certain types of impacts such as the impacts of materials.
However, LCA is not appropriate for considerations such as comfort, or health and, although such
aspects were not addressed in Annex 31, they are an important part of a sustainability assessment of
a building.
6.3
Case Studies of How Tools Affect Decision-Making
The aim of this report was to explore how life-cycle assessment tools influence the design and environmental performance of buildings. Six countries were asked to submit case studies of building
projects where the intention had been to use assessment tools to create a more efficient and environmentally friendly building or buildings stock. Each case study includes information on the site and
project; the energy and environmental features; and the assessment tool and results.
The case studies all demonstrated that the application of life-cycle assessment tools resulted in significant environmental improvements. Using an assessment process during the design phase created
a positive impact on the built environment and, in most instances, the users. Where stock aggregation
tools were used to measure environmental impact on a community-wide scale, the outcome was also
considered to be successful.
6.4
The data needed to assess the energy related environmental impacts of buildings depend strongly on
the type of tool used and, amongst other things, on the aggregation level chosen, such as at the
product, building or stock level. The type of general data needed for each category of tool is described
in the Annex 31 core report Types of Tools.
22

This report contains a more detailed examination of data requirements and sources. Most LCA tools
provide a database with generic inventory data, and some with building-oriented data. These data
have to be checked for their quality and relevance to ensure that an appropriate fit is found between
the data inputs and the case under study. Passive tools, such as checklists and guidelines, tend to be
more self-contained and so no external data may be required other than the buildings specifications.
It is important to verify that the assumptions built into such tools are based on relevant data of sufficient quality.
An LCA study should be sufficiently transparent to enable different practitioners to draw similar
conclusions - providing the assumptions and assessment method are acceptable. This report recommends the following for developers of tools and databases:
1
LCA software tools, including databases, should follow the requirements of the SPOLD (Society for the Promotion of LCA) format in order to cope with comprehensive sets of data.
Since most LCA tools allow users to modify or implement new impact assessment methods, they should allow users to implement their own data quality indicator system, since no
standard protocol currently exists for this.
Because of the high specificity of a building and of building products, a building-oriented

impact assessment software tool should be able to communicate with external tools devoted
to calculating, for example, heating energy consumption, natural lighting (to assess the need
for artificial lighting), indoor air quality, hygro-thermal comfort, and so forth.
Taking into account the high degree of variability of inventory data in many cases, developers should calculate value intervals or conduct any other uncertainty or sensitivity
analysis in a way that is readily understood.
Developers should use existing conceptual models and publish data models to assist the development of software interfaces that can be used to perform complementary studies: energy
consumption during building occupancy being one example.
6.5
Adaptability refers to the capacity of buildings to accommodate substantial change. The concept of
adaptability can be broken down into three areas which will be familiar to most designers: flexibility;
convertibility; and expandability. It is closely related to, but different from, two other design strategies that attempt to enhance long-term environmental performance of buildings, namely durability
and design for disassembly.
A building that is adaptable will be utilized more efficiently, and stay in service longer, than one that
is not. The extension of its useful life may, in turn, translate into improved environmental performance over its life-cycle. This report examines all aspects of adaptability in buildings, from principles
to strategies, to specific features. Evaluation methods and potential benefits are also discussed.
Increasingly, the world faces resource scarcities and ecological crises, and the adaptability of buildings is a matter of growing concern. The current building stock represents the largest financial, physical and cultural asset in the industrialised world. So, a sustainable society will only be achieved if this
resource is managed appropriately. Urban areas everywhere are experiencing problems related to
poor use of buildings and high flows of energy and materials through the building stock. Demolition
rates are rising, and much solid waste is not being recycled.
A building that cannot be altered in response to changing circumstances is at risk of becoming underused and prematurely obsolete. This is usually the case whenever a building cannot accommodate
new, more efficient, technologies or working practices. If adaptability is to be used to overcome such
problems at the design stage there must be some means of distinguishing those features of a new
23

building that will significantly increase its capacity for change. This may prove difficult in the short
term as few of todays buildings have been designed specifically for adaptability, and those that were,
have not been in use for any length of time. A further problem is the difficulty involved in accurately
predicting future requirements for buildings.
In todays marketplace, the adaptability of a building will typically be subordinated to the short-term
goal of maximising the return on capital expenditures, and to satisfying the functional and comfort
needs of occupants. There are two ways to overcome these constraints: incentives to promote adaptability might be incorporated into any new public policy which is directed at sustainable urban development; or businesses could commit to the basic principles of sustainability, and adjust their behavior
accordingly.
If adaptability is to be embraced in public or private policy, it may be necessary to relate adaptability
to the basic principles of sustainable development, such as stewardship and intergenerational equity.
From this perspective, the responsibility of the designer or developer must be to meet the clients
needs and expectations without compromising those of future building owners and users. A design
team that is committed to sustainable, environmentally-sound building needs to take the extra effort
to identify opportunities for enhancing adaptability, and to estimate the related cost and environmental advantages.
Key Priniciples of Adaptability
Independence
Integrate systems within a building such that parts can be removed or upgraded without affecting the
performance of the connected systems
Upgradability
Choose systems and components that can accommodate increased performance requirements
Lifetime compatibility
Avoid strong interconnections between short-term and longer life components; maximise the durability of materials where long lifetimes are required, such as structural components and cladding
Record keeping
Ensure information on building components and systems is readily available, and will remain so in
the future
There is great uncertainty about the next 50 years and what they will bring, which militates against
designing for adaptability. There are, however, some steps that can be taken by designers:
accommodating changes that can be expected to occur in the shorter term
applying common sense practices that have been shown to promote adaptability
incorporating adaptability features that can be justified on other grounds
adopting features that enhance adaptability at little or no additional cost
6.6
Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis can be used at many stages throughout the assessment of energy
related environmental impacts of buildings. The key purpose of sensitivity analysis is to identify and
focus on key data and assumptions that have the most influence on a result thereby simplifying data
collection and analysis without compromising the results. A parallel to sensitivity analysis is uncertainty analysis.
24

Experience shows that uncertainty related to a LCA inventory can be significant, and must be considered when performing comparative LCAs. This report describes how to undertake sensitivity and
uncertainty analysis, and includes examples of how such exercises can improve decisions.
Sensitivity analysis can be used throughout an assessment to achieve the following:
test the assumptions and data used for LCAs
identify the key parameters affecting the embodied energy of a component or building
test the extent to which parameters are important to the life cycle of a building, such as
maintenance or replacement rates
determine which materials require accurate data for the compilation of transport energy and
which do not. This determines which materials are sensitive to location
determine the importance of the life cycle energy use of a building compared with its energyin-use consumption
When used skillfully, sensitivity analyses can dramatically reduce the quantity of data and work
needed to arrive at robust estimates of the energy-related environmental impacts of buildings. It can
also identify crucial data that merits further investigation.
For example, a sensitivity analysis of energy use during the lifespan of Swedish buildings from
cradle to grave shows that the occupational phase, excluding renovation, is responsible for about 85
per cent of total energy use, while construction is responsible for 10 to 15 percent of the total.
Renovation during the occupation phase is responsible for about 5 per cent, while deconstruction in
most cases has an insignificant influence on total energy use. This indicates that the greatest potential
for energy savings occur when buildings are in use and so, if the objective is to measure energy
consumption, this should take place during the use phase of the lifecycle. Detailed sensitivity analyses can reveal which parameters to focus on to reduce other environmental impacts, or to obtain
representative measurements.
Uncertainty analyses can have significant implications for LCAs. They are particularly important
when performing comparative LCAs. A judgement based soley on mean values, with no confidence
interval, may not result in an appropriate choice of a component or process.
Although it is widely recognised that uncertainty is an essential part of LCA it is rarely considered in
practice. The main reason for this being that there is no international concensus on how uncertainty
should be treated or which method should be used to calculate it. However, most LCA-inventory tools
today have some means of handling uncertainty or sensitivity analysis. The biggest problem seems to
be a lack of data and, regardless of which method is eventually chosen, more data will have to be
available than is the case at present if uncertainty analyses are to be adopted.
6.7 Stock Aggregation
Stock aggregation refers to a process in which the performance of buildings is evaluated using components or archetypes from the stock under investigation. One way to estimate the energy consumption of a stock of buildings is by adding up, or aggregating, the energy used by each individual
building within the stock. Alternatively, and for much less effort, a subset of representative buildings
can be analyzed, and the results then factored in proportion to the total number of such buildings in
the stock.
This report explains why aggregation is frequently the best method of assessing large numbers of
buildings. Examples are given which show how stock aggregation can assist in policy development at
the local and regional scale. The method is also shown to offer significant benefits for designers,
planners, businesses in the building sector, and utilities, including:
it can be used to identify trends, and create profiles, forecasts, and benchmarks of performance.
25

it can assist designers of individual buildings to understand how their design choices might
affect or be affected by - the overall stock performance
it can provide planners and policy-makers at varying scales with a richer, more powerful
database on building costs, energy and resource use, and environmental effects.
Stock aggregation methods appear especially appropriate for use by utilities who, for example, may
wish to gain a better understanding of their customer base, and for use by communities. Where a
database is available at the community level, then stock aggregation can provide the basis for new and
powerful planning methods, including urban environmental management systems, and urban forecasting information systems.
In general, stock aggregation can be used to highlight areas where substantial potential exists for
improving resource use and economic efficiency. It allows for quick what if? analyses; stock aggregation can assist in analysing how policies in one area, such as energy security or housing affordability,
can affect other building impacts (air pollution, energy demand, and so on). It allows policy makers to
formulate regulations and incentives to achieve specific targets. It can also be used to identify priorities for research and development.
Stock aggregation is best used in combination with top-down models. These can be used to predict the
impact of prices and regulations on supply and demand. Stock aggregation is clearly a useful application for many of the new assessment methods and tools now available for evaluating the environmental performance of a building. With the aid of stock aggregation, the same tools can be used at a local
and national level. However, at present no commercially available tools exist specifically for stock
aggregation purposes.
7.
Directory of Tools
Many countries now have a variety of tools which have been tailored for use by specific users, and
which fill particular analytical needs. Annex 31 surveyed these tools, and has used the survey to
create a directory of tools, accessible on the project CD-ROM and web site. The purpose of this
directory was to provide a quick overview of the tools that are currently available, or that are soon to
be released. Each tool is described in terms of its functions, audience, users, software application and
technical support, data requirements, strengths, availability and contact information.
Assigning tools to categories makes it easier for potential users to identify tools most appropriate for
their needs. Annex 31 Tools were categorised as follows:
Energy Modeling software
Environmental LCA Tools for Buildings and Building Stocks
Environmental Assessment Frameworks and Rating Systems
Environmental Guidelines or Checklists for Design and Management of Buildings
Environmental Product Declarations, Catalogues, Reference Information, Certifications and
Labels
The Annex 31 survey was designed to complement the United States Department of Energy (US
DOE) Building Energy Software Tools Directory: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory
The US DOE Directory includes descriptions of interactive software tools for evaluating energy
efficiency, renewable energy and sustainability in buildings. Other types of tools, including LCA
Tools, Assessment Frameworks, Rating Systems, Guidelines, Catalogues, Checklists and so on are
described in this Annex 31 report. Both the Annex 31 site, and the US DOE site, use a similar format
for organising and describing tools.
26
8.
Glossary
A glossary of selected terms was designed for Annex 31 to standardise the many specialised terms
used for describing the environmental performance of buildings, in a number of languages. The glossary emerged as a result of ongoing communications difficulties experienced within Annex 31.
Academics and researchers in 14 countries used different English terms interchangeably. Varying
translations compounded this problem. The solution was to carefully review the use of all terminology, with special reference to terms used in international standards, and then to translate a standard
set of English terms into the other languages commonly used within the Annex.
9.
Conclusions
As the need to reduce the environmental impact of buildings becomes more pressing, energy and life
cycle assessment tools will become increasingly important resources. Annex 31 presents a comprehensive overview of the theory behind them, and provides a wealth of information on the development of building assessment tools and their use. Some of the main conclusions are discussed below,
but readers are encouraged to access the complete series of reports which are available on the Annex
31 CD-ROM or at www.annex31.com.
Assessing the environmental performance of buildings involves a number of critical assumptions
concerning their anticipated life, maintenance, demolition or deconstruction. A major finding of Annex 31 is that the nature and scope of these assumptions must be made clear: tool developers must
justify them and make them explicit. Transparency is an essential feature of assessment tools because
the people who use them need to be able understand the background assumptions of tools before they
can draw appropriate conclusions from the results they produce. Uncertainty analysis and variability
analysis are also very important for the interpretation of the performance of assessment tools. Yet
they rarely feature in the current generation of tools, or are not apparent to the user when they do. For
environmental tools to be effective they must not only inform the user of any assumptions that have
been made, but must also be amenable to some form of sensitivity analysis.
Developers of methods and tools should also concentrate on the information requirements of their
target audience. The developer should analyse the working methods and decision-making processes
of the intended users. Tools must be designed to be easily understood by users and decision-makers.
They must provide meaningful results that reveal causal relationships between sources and impacts.
Key decision-makers and other non-technical audiences are likely to want concise information presented in plain language. Others, who may be more accustomed to using assessment tools, will be
able to deal with more detailed and technical information.
Each participant in a building design process has his or her own scope for decision-making, and may
become involved in decisions at more than one stage in the process. Decision support tools must
reflect this complexity, and recognise that each person is unlikely to derive the same results when
using similar tools. Also, specific tools are needed to support good decision-making at the most
appropriate stage of a project the early design phase where decisions can have the largest impact
on a buildings performance. Annex 31 identified that participants involved in design may need the
following:
Decision aid and assessment tools
Tools for raising awareness, and for educational purposes
Design aid tools (catalogues of solutions or of products)
Tools with which to carefully consider the environment at the local scale
Tools to aid the participants in making the right decision at the right time, but without making
the decisions for them
Tools which speak their language, which are transparent, are easy to use and are appropriate
27

Assessment methods are particularly valuable at the inception of a building project, when information can be scarce, or very imprecise. Ideally, an assessment tool should be able to accommodate the
increasingly detailed levels of data which become available as the project progresses. But it may be
advantageous for tool designers to establish new simplified models from current detailed models for
use by decision-makers at the outset of a project. In addition, tool designers should always provide
users with some form of cost analysis in addition to the environmental assessment, as cost is a key
factor in decision-making.
Decision support tools should integrate any environmental criteria into the existing design process.
This is a challenge as architects and others involved in the building design process already have many
conflicting issues to resolve. When assessment tools are introduced, they always take up more economic resources, time and knowledge, and require access to specialised information. It is essential
therefore that decision-support tools minimise complexity and costs. In this context, tools must:
address those factors that have the most deleterious effect on the environment
be readily adaptable to specific buildings and locations
be capable of ranking results rapidly, so that trivial issues can be eliminated
be transparent in their assumptions
Current thinking about environmental assessment is converging towards LCA methods, and Annex
31 identified that while these can be very effective for certain types of impacts, they are less so for
others. Areas which pose particular problems for LCA include the impact of building occupants,
transportation, and other processes linked to the use of a building, such as water supply, sewage, and
solid waste processing.
Unlike many other products, buildings are occupied for long periods of time and their use phase can
have a more significant impact on the environment than all other phases combined. So a major issue
for LCA applications is how best to characterise this phase. Scenarios are needed to define the role of
occupant behaviour. In addition, other scenarios are needed to indicate how the building itself will be
kept in order and modified - its maintenance cycles, repair and replacement schedules, renovation and
refurbishment of interior spaces by occupants.
Assumptions about the efficiency with which the building will adapt to changing expectations, changing
uses, and the introduction of new technologies will also have a direct bearing on the buildings performance and longevity. Evaluating a range of usage scenarios is thus critical when assessing the true
long term performance of a given design or product or system.
Annex 31 has shown that stock aggregation can be used to estimate the performance of building
stocks in the future, if assumptions are made about the growth and turnover rates within a stock, and
the adoption rates for new technologies. Forecasts for energy, water and land use, and for generation
of solid and liquid wastes, can be compared with the current and planned capacity limits for the
surrounding infrastructure. Environmental loadings originating from the stock can be compared with
the capacity of the local ecology to absorb them. Stock aggregation also allows policy makers to
formulate regulations and incentives to achieve specific targets, and can also be used to identify
priorities for research and development.
Transport to and from a building can cause environmental impacts as large as those incurred operating the building itself. Hence, the transport related environmental consequences of location, and the
potential for energy savings, are substantial and some account must be made for them when the
boundaries for an assessment are set. Similarly, the life span of a building or a site is a very important
parameter in an environmental profile. Longer building lifetimes often reduce the environmental
impacts by extending the amortization period for large components. They can also favour design
features which reduce operating costs. Ideally, an environmental framework would establish the scope
of any impacts that may occur over the entire lifetime, for all buildings. However, the long lifetimes
of buildings impose high levels of uncertainty on the analysis, and can frustrate efforts to evaluate the
costs and benefits of lifetime extensions.
28

Nevertheless, building stock is the largest financial and physical asset in the industrialised world.
This resource will have to be managed appropriately if society is to move towards greater sustainability.
Urban areas everywhere are experiencing problems related to poor use of buildings and the high
flows of energy and materials associated with it. Annex 31 has identified that designing buildings for
adaptability is important in this context, but if adaptability is to be used to overcome such problems at
the design stage there must be some means of distinguishing those features of a new building that will
significantly increase its capacity to adapt to change.
The LCA methodology is not appropriate for considerations such as health or productivity and, although such aspects were not addressed in Annex 31, they are an important part of a sustainability
assessment of a building. Traditional LCA methods do not consider any impacts on the indoor environment, since these impacts are usually considered in isolation. Consequently, most LCA-oriented
tools do not include indoor environmental impacts either, so other methods must be used for this
purpose. Combining energy analysis with indoor environmental quality assessments can be especially worthwhile because of the potential trade-offs and synergies. By the same token, energy efficiency measures may make conditions worse for building occupants or others: usually when not
implemented properly or when users are not well enough informed. This is why Annex 31 covered
energy issues by taking an overall approach in the environmental assessment of a project.
The LCA method typically employs rules for cutting off the analysis at appropriate boundaries. Where
one draws these boundaries when assessing the energy-related impact of one, or several buildings,
was part of Annex 31s deliberations. A key finding of Annex 31 is that setting system boundaries is
more difficult and critical than it appears at first sight. Tool designers must be explicit when they
describe boundaries they have set, and must justify their choices. Boundaries must relate closely to
the intended use of the tool and reflect a reasonable compromise between the validity of the results
and the practicability of obtaining them. Setting system boundaries for buildings is critical to achieving valid and comparable results: comparative studies of the performance of different LCA tools in
this Annex showed that most of the variations observed in the results came from differences within
the limits of the respective systems - and that these were not always clear at the outset.
In order to improve the environmental performance of buildings and building stocks, tools should
provide enough information on the impact of buildings to satisfy the environmental objectives. They
should assist in the selection of environment-friendly solutions, and influence key decisions from the
inception of a project onwards. Ultimately the use of environmental assessment tools in this way
should lead to:
a greater awareness of the environmental impact of the built environment
more emphasis on life cycle impacts during the initial design stages
the identification of solutions that are sympathetic to the environment
improved communication between the parties involved in a building project
29
10.
Acknowledgements and Key Contacts
Annex 31 has benefited from participation by many agencies and individuals from the member countries. Names and contact information are listed in the Links to Annex 31 Participants and Agencies
section. Authors of research reports are noted on the first page of each original research report available in the reference materials. Each of the participants in Annex 31 contributed valuable material to
the final reports, and their effort is greatly appreciated.
Substantial research and writing was undertaken with great dedication by two of the section leaders:
Sylviane Nibel (F), and Thomas Ltzkendorf (De). Marjo Knapen and Chiel Boonstra (NL) also
contributed significantly as section leaders for tool applications and comparisons. Completion of the
final reports, CD-ROM and web site were managed by Thomas Green (Ca), with coordination support from Nils Larsson (Ca), project work led by Sebastian Moffatt (Ca), and web site construction by
Thomas Ltzkendorf (De) and Woytek Kujawski (Ca), with funding from Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation (CMHC).
Agencies
The table below provides a list of Agencies that have sponsored participants, and provided financial
support for Annex 31.
11.
Links to Participants and Agencies
www.iea.org
www.ecbcs.org
www.tce.rmit.edu.au/iea
www.uni-weimar.de/ANNEX31
Participants
City Campus, Room 8.8.53, 360 Swanston

Street
Melbourne Victoria, Australia 3000
T : +61 3 9925 2230
F : +61 3 9925 1939
E : peter.edwards@rmit.edu.au
W : www.tce.rmit.edu.au/bce
Australia
Peter Stewart
Ph.D, Bach of Bldg (Honours),
Grad Dip Engineering Maintenance Mgt,
Master of Bldg, AAIQS, MAIB
Associate Professor & Head of Department
Dept of Building & Construction Economics
RMIT University
Street
T : +61 3 9925 2230
F : +61 3 9925 1939
E : peter.stewart@rmit.edu.au
W : www.tce.rmit.edu.au/bce
Peter Edwards
Ass. Prof.
RMIT University
30
Peter Graham
MAppSci (Building), B. Build, Grad AIB
RMIT University
Street
GPO Box 2476V
T : +61 3 9925 1936
F : +61 3 9925 1939
E : peter.graham@rmit.edu.au
Caroline J Mackley
AAIQS, B.Build(CE), Ph.D.
Technical Services Group, Bovis Lend Lease
Level 7 Plaza Building, 87-95 Pitt St.
Sydney NSW, Australia
T : +61 2 9236 6458
F : +61 2 9232 8973
E : caroline.mackley@ap.bovislendlease.com
W : www.bovislendlease.com
Previously: University of New South Wales

Canada
Peter Russell
MSc., P.Eng.
PRA (Peter Russell & Associates)
12, Mowat St. Ottawa,
Ontario K1J 6R2, Canada
T : +1 613 744 8062
F : +1 613 744 8873
E : prussellassoc@home.com
Previously : Research Division,
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
Ottawa
Sebastian Moffatt
BES MSc
President and Director of Research
Sheltair Group Resource Consultants Inc.
3661 West 4th Ave., Suite #2, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, V6R 1P2
T : (direct) +1 604 732-9106 ext. 302
F : +1 604 732-9238
E : smoffatt@sheltair.com
W : www.Sheltair.com
Nils Larsson
B. Arch.
Architect & Researcher
NRCan, Energy Technology Centre
13 th Floor, 580 Booth St.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0E4
T : (NRCan) +1 613 943-2263
T : +1 613 232-2330
F : +1 613 232-7018
Mob : +1 613 769-1242
E : larsson@greenbuilding.ca
W: www.iisbe.org
Raymond J. Cole
BSc (Civil Eng); PhD (Architectural Science)
Professor
Sch. of Architecture, Univ. of British Columbia
6333 Memorial Road, Vancouver
British Columbia, V6T 1Z2, Canada
T : +1 604 822-2857
F : +1 604 822-3808
E : cole@architecture.ubc.ca
W: www.architecture.ubc.ca
Thomas C. Green
BSc BEDS MArch
Senior Researcher
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
700 Montreal Road
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0P7

T: +1 613 748-2340
F: +1 613 748-2402
E: tgreen@cmhc-schl.gc.ca
W: www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca
Denmark
Ebbe Holleris Petersen
M.Sc (Civ.Eng.), Senior researcher
By og Byg
Danish Building and Urban Research
Energy and Indoor Climate Division
P.O. Box 119
Dr. Neergaards Vej 15, DK-2970 Hoersholm,
Denmark
T :(direct): +45 45 76 74 33 (tone) 384
T :(secretary): +45 45 86 55 33
F : +45 45 85 75 35
E : eep@by-og-byg.dk
W : www.by-og-byg.dk
Jrn Dinesen
M.Sc (Civ.Eng.)
Senior researcher
By og Byg
P.O. Box 119
Denmark
T :(direct): +45 45 76 74 33 (tone) 373
T :(secretary): +45 45 86 55 33
F : +45 45 85 75 35
E : jod@by-og-byg.dk
Klaus Hansen
M.Sc (Civ.Eng.)
Senior researcher
By og Byg
P.O. Box 119
Denmark
T :(direct): +45 45 76 74 33 (tone) 386
T :(secretary): +45 45 86 55 33
F : +45 45 85 75 35
E : klh@by-og-byg.dk
Finland
Ilari Aho
MSc (Mechanical Engineering)
31

Director, MotivaLtd.
Information Center for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Sources
PO Box 489, FIN-0o101 Helsinki, Finland
T : +35 8 9 8565 3103
F : +35 8 9 8565 3199
E : ilari.aho@motiva.fi
W : www.motiva.fi
Previously : VTT Building Technology,
Espoo
Jari Shemeikka
MScTech (Civil Engineering)
Research Scientist
VTT Building Technology
Technical Research Centre of Finland
PO Box 1804, Finland, FIN-02044 VTT,
Finland
T: +35 8 9 456 4921
T : (secretary): +358 9 456 6143
F: +35 8 9 455 2408
E: Jari.Shemeikka@vtt.fi
W: www.vtt.fi
France
Sylviane Nibel
INSA engineer, ENPC Ph.D
Researcher
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Btiment
French Building Research Institute
Energy, Indoor Environment and Automation
84, av. Jean Jaurs, Champs-sur-Marne, BP 2,
F-77421, Marne-la-Valle Cedex 2, France
T : (direct) : +33.(0)1.64.68.83.01
T : (secretary) : +33.(0)1.64.68.82.44
F : +33.(0)1.64.68.83.50
E : nibel@cstb.fr
W : www.cstb.fr
Serge Sidoroff
Ing. EMSE, mast. ISIGE (Eng. & Manag. of
Env.)
CARAT Environnement
176, bd de Charonne
75020 Paris, France
T : +33 (0)1 43 79 33 49
F : +33 (0)1 43 67 34 76
E : serge.sidoroff@online.fr
W : www.carat-environment.fr
32
Germany
Thomas Ltzkendorf
Dr.-Ing.; Dipl.-Ing. Bauingenieur (civil engineer)
Universitt Karlsruhe {TH}
D-76128 Karlsruhe 1, Germany
T : +49 721-608 83 40
F : +49 721-608 83 41
E : thomas.luetzkendorf@wiwi.unikarlsruhe.de
Previously : Bauhaus-University
Department of architecture, Weimar
Karsten Tanz
Dipl.-Ing. (civil engineer)
Consultant & Researcher
BBS Ingenieurbro Gronau & Partner Weimar
Build. physics, consult. & res. work in build.
field
D- 99423 Weimar, Thomas Mntzer Strae 6,
Germany
T : +49 3643 500011
F : +49 3643 500013
E : karsten.bbs-we@seenetz.com
E : bbs-we@seenetz.com
Previously : Bauhaus-Universitt, Weimar
Markus Koch
Dipl.-Ing. & Architect
University of Karlsruhe
Institut fr Industrielle Bauproduktion (ifib),
Institute for industrial building production,
Englerstr. 7, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
T : +49 721 608-2167
T : +49 721 608-2166
F : +49 721 608-6980
E : markus.koch@ifib.uni-karlsruhe.de
W : www.ifib.uni-karlsruhe.de
Niklaus Kohler
Arch.dipl. EPFL/SIA, Dr.s sc.
Professor
University of Karlsruhe
Institut fuer Industrielle Bauproduktion (ifib)
Institute for industrial building production
Englerstrasse 7, D-78128 Karlsruhe, Germany
T : +49 721 608 21 66
F : +49 721 608 69 80
E : niklaus.kohler@ifib.uni-karlsruhe.de
W : www.ifib.uni-karlsruhe.de

Japan
Noriyoshi Yokoo
Dr.Eng. (Waseda University)
Research Associate
Department Architecture &Civil Eng.
Faculty of Engineering.
Utsunomiya University
7-1-2 Yoto Utsunomiya, Tochigi
Japan 321-8585
T : +81 28 689 6191
F : +81 28 689 6194
E : yokoo@cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp
Tatsuo Oka
Dr.Eng. (Waseda University)
Professor
Department of Architecture &Civil Eng.,
Faculty of Engineering.
Utsunomiya University
7-1-2 Yoto Utsunomiya, Tochigi
Japan 321-8585
T : +81 28 689 6188
F : +81 28 689 6194
E : oka1@kt.rim.or.jp
Japan 329-0432
T : +81 285 48 2611
F : +81 285 48 2655
E : yskonno@sumiken.co.jp
W : www.sumiken.co.jp
Toshiharu Ikaga
Dr.Eng.(Tokyo University)
General Manager
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
2-1-3, Koraku, Bunkyo-ku,Tokyo
Japan 112-8565
T : +81 3 3813 3361
F : +81 3 3817 7072
E : ikaga@nikken.co.jp
Kazuharu Takemoto
M.Sc.(Osaka University)
Technical Research Institute
Ohbayashi Corporation
4-640, Shimokiyoto, Kiyose, Tokyo
Japan 204
T : +81 424 95 1049
F : +81 424 95 1260
E : takemoto@tri.obayashi.co.jp
Akira Takakusagi
Dr. Eng. (Waseda University)
Manager
NTT Building Technology Institute
3-35-1, Shimorenjyaku, Mitaka, Tokyo
Japan 180-0013
T : +81 422 41 3611
F : +81 422 40 7115
E : takakusagi@ntt-bti.co.jp
Michiya Suzuki
Dr. Eng.( Utsunomiya University)
Senior Research Engineer
Institute of Technology
Shimizu Corporation
3-4-7, Etchujima, Koto, Tokyo
Japan 135-8530
T : +81 3 3820 5956
F : +81 3 3820 5959
E : michiya@tech.shimz.co.jp
Shiro Nakajima
Ph.D. (Tokyo University)
Chief Researcher
Dept. of Building Materials and Components
Building Research Institute (BRI)
Ministry of Construction (MOC)
1-Tatehara, Tsukuba,-shi, Ibarakiken
JAPAN 305-0802
T : +81 298 64 6631
F : +81 298 64 6772
E : nakajima@kenken.go.jp
Yukio Nakano
Dr.Eng.(Nagoya University)
Research Fellow
Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry
2-11-1, Iwado Kita, Komae-shi, Tokyo
Japan 201
T : +81 3 3480 2111
F : +81 3 3830 4014
E: nakano@croiepi.denken.or.jp
Yasuhiko Konno
M.Sc. Architecture (Hokkaido Univ.)
Chief Research Engineer
Institute of Technology & Development,
Sumitomo Construction Co., Ltd.
1726 Niragawa Minamikawachi-Machi
Tochigi
Kazumichi Araki
Manager
Customer and service department
Tokyo Gas Ltd.
3-7-1, Nishi-Shinjuku, Tokyo
Japan 112
T : +81 3 5322 7652
F : +81 3 5322 7561
33

E: kazaraki@tokyo-gas.co.jp
Toshihiko Tanaka
Dr.Eng.(Tokyo University)
Manager
Marketing and customer relations department
Tokyo Electric Power Company
3, Uchisaiwaicho 1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Japan 112
T : +81 3 3501 8111 Ext. 5746
F : +81 3 3596 8521
E: t0610899@pmail.tepco.co.jp
Netherlands
Chiel Boonstra
MSc Architecture (Technical University Delft)
DHV Accommodation and Real Estate
P.O. Box 1427, 3800 BK Amersfoort
The Netherlands
T : +31 33 476 06 41
F : +31 33 476 04 12
E : chiel.boonstra@dhv.nl
Previously - Director International Projects
W/E consultants, sustainable building
Marjo Knapen
MSc Toxicology - Health sc. (Univ. of
Nijmegen)
Gravin Beatrixstraat 2
2805 PJ Gouda
The Netherlands
T : +31 182 58 24 67
E: marjo.knapen@planet.nl
Previously - W/E Consultants, Research &
Consultancy on Sustainable Building, Gouda
New Zealand
Michael Camilleri
BSc, MSc, PhD
Building Physicist
Building Research Association of New Zealand
Energy & Environment Section
Private Bag 50908, Porirua City, New Zealand
T : +64 4 235 7600
F : +64 4 235 6070
E : branzmtc@branz.org.nz
W : www.branz.org.nz
Nigel Isaacs
BE (Elect), MBSc, Dip.Bus.Admin
Manager, Energy & Environment
34

Moonshine Road, Judgeford,
Private Bag 50908, Porirua City,New Zealand
T : +64 4 235 7600
F : +64 4 235 6070
E : branznpi@branz.org.nz
Roman Jaques
BBSc (Hons)
Building Technologist
Private Bag 50908, Porirua City, New Zealand
T : +64 4 235 7600
F : +64 4 235 6070
E : branzraj@branz.org.nz
Norway
Trine Dyrstad Pettersen
Ph.D
Researcher
Norges byggforskningsinstitutt
Norwegian Building Research Institute
Building Technology Department
Energy and Environment
P.O.Box 123 Blindern, N-0314 Oslo, Norway
T : +47 22 96 55 41
F : +47 22 96 57 25
E : Trine.Pettersen@byggforsk.no
W : www.byggforsk.no
Sverre Fossdal
Ph.D.
Norges byggforskningsinstitutt
Building Technology Department
Energy and Environment
P.O.Box 123 Blindern, N-0314 Oslo, Norway
T: +47 22 96 55 43
S : +47 22 96 55 00
F : +47 22 96 55 42
E : Sverre.Fossdal@byggforsk.no
W : www.byggforsk.no
Sweden
Wolfram Trinius
Ph.D.
Ingenieurbro Trinius
Zimmerstrasse 19

22085 hamburg
Germany
T : +49 40 2275 9430
F : +49 40 2275 9431
E : trinius@trinius.de
W : www.trinius.de
Previously : Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Mauritz Glaumann
Architect, Ph D
Asst. Prof.
Royal Institute of Technology
Infrastructure and Planning
Built Environment Analysis
SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden
T : +46 26 648125
T : +46 8 7908579
F : +46 26 648181
E : glaumann@arch.kth.se
sa Jnsson
Ph. D.
Skanska Teknik AB
Lilla Bommen 2
405 18 Gthenburg, Sweden
T : +46 31 771 10 13
F : +46 31 15 38 15
E : asa.jonsson@teknik.skanska.se
Previously : Chalmers University of Technology
Switzerland
E : nigelp.howard@ntworld.com
Previously : Director, Centre for Sustainable
Construction, Building Research Establishment, Garston
Roger Baldwin
MSc, FRSA
Ex-Director, Centre for Sustainable Construction
BRE, Building Research Establishment
15, Harford Drive, Watford, Herts
WD1 3DQ, UK
T : +44 (0) 1923 226863
E : RogerBaldwin1@compuserve.com
USA
Donald F. Fournier
MSME, BSEE
Researcher/Consultant
USA Construction Engineering Res. Laboratory
Facilities Division, Energy Branch
Research for the Built and Natural Environments
USACERL
PO Box 9005, Champaign, IL 61826-9005,
USA
T : +1 217 373 7282
F : +1 217 373 6740
E : Donald.F.Fournier@erdc.usace.army.mil
W : www.cecer.army.mil
ExCo Reviewers
Annick Lalive dEpinay

Dr. sc. nat., Dipl. Arch. ETH
Basler and Hofmann, Engineers and Planners
SA
Forchstrasse 395, 8029 Zurich, Switzerland
T : +41 1 387 11 22
F : +41 1 387 11 00
E : alalive@bhz.ch
W : www.bhz.ch
Previously : Swiss Federal Institute of
Techonology
United Kingdom
Nigel Howard
C Chem, MRSC
10, Bucknalls Drive,
Bricket Wood, St Albans, Herts,
AL2 3XL, UK
T/F : +44 1923 404368
Jorn Brunsell
P.O. Box 123 Blindern
N 0314, Oslo, Norway
T : +47 22 96 5500
F : +47 22 96 5725
E : jorn.brunsell@byggforsk.no
Piet Heijnen
NOVEM BV
Swentiboldstraat 21
P.P.Box 17, 6130 AA
Sittard, The Netherlands
T : +31 46 4 202265
F : +31 46 4 528260
E : p.heijnen@novem.nl
35

Mark Zimmermann
EMPA-ZEN
Ueberlandstrasse 129
CH 8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
T : +41 1 823 4178
F : +41 1 823 4009
E : mark.zimmermann@empa.ch
IEA Secretariat
Clas-Otto Wene
Office of Energy Efficiency, Technology, R & D
rue de la Fdration
75739 Paris Cedex 15, France
T : +33 1 40 57 66 22
E : Clas-Otto.WENE@iea.org
12.
References
Principal Annex 31 Project Reports (available at www.annex31.com)

Core reports:
Environmental Framework
Decision Making Framework
Tools
LCA for Buildings
Background Reports:
Comparative Applications - A Comparison of Different Tool Results on Similar Residential
and Commercial Buildings.
Case Studies of How Tools Affect Decision Making
Stock Aggregation
36
37
38
39
The International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy Conservation in Buildings

and Community Systems Programme (ECBCS)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) was established as an autonomous body within
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974, with
the purpose of strengthening co-operation in the vital area of energy policy. As one
element of this programme, member countries take part in various energy research,
development and demonstration activities. The Energy Conservation in Buildings and
Community Systems Programme has sponsored various research annexes associated
with energy prediction, monitoring and energy efficiency measures in both new and
existing buildings. The results have provided much valuable information about the state
of the art of building analysis and have led to further IEA sponsored research.
40

Annex 31

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Annex 31

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Technical Synthesis Report

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Technical Synthesis Report

Edited by Richard Hobday

Published by FaberMaunsell Ltd on behalf of the International Energy Agency

Copyright FaberMaunsell Ltd 2005

Participating countries in ECBCS:

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

International Energy Agency

Load Energy Determination of Buildings (*)

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Air Flow Patterns within Buildings (*)

Working Group - Energy Efficiency in Educational Buildings (*)

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Life Cycle Assessment

The Environmental Framework Report

Context and Methods for Tool Designers

Acknowledgements and Key Contacts

Links to Participants and Agencies

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Life Cycle Assessment

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Life Cycle Assessment

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Figure 1: Common effects considered in LCA

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Extent of Energy-Related Considerations

Figure 2: Technical Systems are contained within the environment

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Logos for the core reports

The Environmental Framework Report

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Figure 4: Building Life-Cycle and Environmental Loadings and Impacts

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

The Decision-Making Framework Report

Figure 6: Impact of time on cost and influence

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Identifying the problem

- recognise the problem

Describing the problem

Pre-selection stage 2 (*)

- specify important building measures

Table 1: A Description of Decision-Making and Preparatory Process

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Figure 7: The three spheres of sustainability

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

The Types of Tools Report

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

The LCA Methods for Buildings Report

Figure 10: Life cycle assessment for buildings

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems

Figure 11: Simultaneous shared process

Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings

Figure 12: The contribution of UKs transport to global warming

Figure 13: Energy consumption in the UK

Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems